Talk:M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] BAR vs. LMG
- I should add what distinguishes the BAR from a LMG, even though that's the catagory that it usually fits in. Oberiko
- Go ahead. Engineer
- Was it true that the US ordered Chauchats instead of the BAR partially because they didn't have the time to manufacture new guns, but also because they didn't want the technology to fall into the hands of the Germans? I remember hearing it, but thought it sounded strange. Hyperneural
I've heard the same thing, but I don't have a source. ASWilson 01:06, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
The BAR hunting rifle currently manufactured by Browning is a modern semi-auto design that is toatlly unrelated to the military BAR.
I've looked at several sites, and they all saw the Browning saw some action, though a little, in the last months of WWI, so I edited the page. Mightfox
[edit] Falling into German Hands
I have heard that line before, and while I do not have enough solid evidence to confirm or deny I feel I can make an intelligent guess. To me it seems very unlikely we would be worried about the germans capturing the technology of something like the BAR. To many people think only of the MG42 when it comes to German Machiene Guns, and while it was superiror to anything else in the field of battle that day, it was not the only german full auto weapon to hold this distinction. Thus given the fact that the German technology was already so far ahead of the allies in that area, it seems unlikely to me that this would be a legitimate concern. Klauth 22:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- The Germans were a scavenger army whether people want to believe it or not. They impressed everything they could get their hands on. However, when it comes to BARs I wouldn't think US style ones would have been captured, since they were not sold lend-lease to the Russians to my knowledge and not to anyone else for that matter. However, I'm sure the Germans picked up a number of FN BARs and Polish clones too, and impressed them to some degree. If you can find pictures of soldiers in Russia using Thompsons then I'm sure they were using 8mm BARs. --Thatguy96 17:19, 20 February 2006
BARs falling into German hands was a real concern in WWI. At that age the BAR was the most advanced automatic weapon of its class. -Chin, Cheng-chuan
[edit] M1918 Sniper Use?
Was the BAR ever considered to be used as a sniper rifle?, Just asking becouse say if there is a situtation the Sniper would have to use full automatic?. User:EX STAB
yes COD 3 made it so overpowerd(Esskater11 23:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC))
[edit] Scavanging
No argument that the Germans scavenged weapons, that was one of the primary things the Waffen-S.S. were trained to do (especially their volunteer regiments). The point that I was making is that when the other side already has better technology their capturing yours is less of a concern. It would be like being afraid that Ferrari will steal a Corvette. Both are nice but Ferrari wouldnt really have anything to gain from it. Save maybe one more car out there, they won't be gaining any remarkable technological advances from it.
- Doesn't changet the facts. The German's went to war in 1939 with over a 100 different types of vehicles in inventory, a logistical nightmare, and still made heavy use horse-drawn wagons. They took because they needed the numbers, not because the equipment was particularly good. This would be one of the causes of the German defeat was the lack of logistical cohesion and industrial base to support the war effort for the prolonged period of time. Even by 1944 the Germans were still making use of anything they could scavange from the field to replace the heavy losses. --Thatguy96 21:28, 21 February 2006
You seem to have missed the point of my comment in totality. I am not debating if the germans scavenged or even if they needed to. My point was that there wouldn't be any advantageous gain of technology, by aquiring the BAR. The fact they did aquire them is immaterial, the only gain from doing so is being able to equip one more soldier. The fact they could not produce enough of their advanced technology of course taken into account and acknowledged. Klauth 02:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- I did miss your point, though I see it now. However, the fact that it happened regardless means that it should be mentioned in that light. The superiorirty of various weapons depending on doctrine and the like is probably debatable to a degree as well. --Thatguy96 22:50, 21 February 2006
agreed Klauth 07:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I don't mean any disrespect but you may all be missing the point. The fear of the Germans capturing a BAR was during WW1, not WW2. DMorpheus 18:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] BARs in Abyssinia
I recently came across a photograph from the Italian invasion of Abyssinia (now Ethiopia). The photo shows two deceased Ethiopian soldiers and what is clearly two early-style (1918) BARs propped up on their position.
Anyone know how BARs ended up in Ethiopia during that period (late 1930s)? The photo in question is in a book; if I could find it online I would provide a link.
[edit] How long were they in inventory?
I have a relative who went through USAF basic training in 1977 and was trained on the BAR. Seems like a long time after it would be frontline issue.
Just out of curiousity, how long were they officially in service?
- i dont no the exact date it was retired but i no it was probaly retired soon after reltive used it or 80's, but i no it might be still in stocks. they still have original m16
[edit] 30 Round Magazine?
Was a 30 Round Magazine ever considered?, Im asking becouse it only took 20 rounds which ran out soon. Did the US ever consider adopting the Bren gun in .30-06 Calibre?User:EX STAB
[edit] .303 SAA Ball Variant
I seen an M1918 Bar in .303 Calibre, Was this a proposed version for the British before using the bren?User:EX STAB
[edit] Civilian BAR Rifles
This article doesn't have a space for the modern BAR civilian rifles. I realize they're not the same thing at all from an engineering perspective, but problematically they have the same name. They don't seem to have their own page either. Suggestions on making a section here, vs a new page, vs some other method? Arthurrh 02:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, the Ohio Ordnance M1918A3 is included, but you are correct about Browning's current line of BAR hunting rifles. I think a seperate article should be made for those rifles, because they are internally different and are not "M1918"s which should help in disambiguation. -- Thatguy96 03:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
So what should the article title be? Browning BAR (civilian)? With entries on the disambiguation page and small line in this BAR article? Arthurrh 07:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I see that it might not be as easy to do as I might've thought. I was actually thinking Browning Automatic Rifle, but I'm sure that redirects here, and people putting that in would more likely be looking for the M1918 article. I was just thinking about the AR-15 and M16 articles. Hmm, any other ideas? -- Thatguy96 14:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Browning BAR would do nicely. It's got the name of the company first. You could put a disclaimer in both articles cross-directing them. The Browning BAR does deserve a separate article if for no other reason than as a disambiguation.--Asams10 14:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)